On Friday 6 January 2017, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (F.A.Z.) released an article titled “Not everything is that bad in Eritrea, is it?” (orig.: Alles gar nicht so schlimm in Eritrea?) in which European diplomats raise doubts about the credibility of the United Nations Commission of Inquiry (COI) report 2016 concerning the human rights situation in Eritrea.
The COI report in 2016 concluded that gross human rights violations by Eritrean authorities have been committed as part of a widespread and systematic campaign against the civilian population since 1991 and constitute crimes against humanity. According to the F.A.Z., four European ambassadors, among them the German ambassador to Eritrea, now question the report, arguing that is implausible to believe that human rights violations happened on such a broad scale while there was no evidence of it for over two centuries. They ask: if this had been the case, why did it take so long?
Why was there no evidence for almost two decades?
This might appear to be a legitimate question, but the reality is that concerns have been repeatedly raised. The question itself should not be used as a way to jump to the conclusion that the COI report is not credible.
Sheila B. Keetharuth (Mauritius) was appointed as the first Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Eritrea in October 2012. Following this appointment, the UN received a mandate to investigate the human rights situation in Eritrea in June 2014. It may seem questionable as to why such an investigation was not initiated at an earlier time. However, the non-cooperative character of the regime that refused to grant access to the UN since the appointment of the Special Rapporteur lies behind the reason why a comprehensive, in-depth investigation was not carried out earlier.
It is legitimate to question why it took two decades to find evidence of the crimes being committed. Nevertheless, the question can easily be turned around and cast doubt about the current motives for European diplomats asking the question at this time.
Did the findings of the COI report come as a surprise?
It is not the case that no one reported about the situation in Eritrea in the previous years. As stated in the F.A.Z., the diplomats raising the question recognised that at least 20 other embassies have been present in Eritrea since 1991 and were following developments in the country. Whether it is deliberate or not, the diplomats imply that none of these crimes have come to the attention of foreign authorities in Asmara until now. This is quite unlikely and not even correct. For instance, the U. S. Department of state identified the severe situation concerning respect for human rights in Eritrea in its country report in 2010. Gross human rights violations such as unlawful deprivation of life, arbitrary, inhuman and degrading treatment as well as torture were also recognised as widespread and systematic in this report. An even earlier report on the human rights situation in Eritrea can be found from Human Rights Watch in 2004. The situation described at that time does not differ to the findings of the COI report of 2016.
Diplomatic realities in Asmara
Despite this, suggesting that 20 embassies had not raised such concerns about Eritrea’s political situation seeks to create the impression the criticisms being made are exaggerating the issue. In fact, embassies have left Eritrea for reasons of gross human rights violations committed by the Eritrean government that either impeded the diplomatic relations severely or caused them to break them off entirely. In 2001, for instance, after president Isaias Afwerki jailed more than 10 independent journalists to silence the opposition, the Italian ambassador to Eritrea presented a letter of protest to the authorities. The Eritrean government did not welcome this critique and promptly expelled the Italian ambassador while other European ambassadors were withdrawn. In the following years the Eritrean regime continued to pursue an aggressive path with respect to its diplomatic relations as the arbitrary imprisonment of 48 Eritrean employees of the US embassy shows.
Incidents like this demonstrate not only that the findings of the COI report should come as no surprise, it also shows under what conditions foreign diplomats are required to work in Eritrea. Former US ambassador to Eritrea Ronald McMullen reported that diplomats are prevented from having access to the local population and said that his office had to give a 10-day notice to Eritrean officials to get a permit to leave the capital city, Asmara. McMullen served as an ambassador from 2007 to 2010 and only 14 out of 65 requests were approved during this time. Other foreign officials are also known to be facing similar restrictions in exercising their functions in Asmara. They are only granted very limited access to areas outside the capital Asmara, and visiting military camps and state prisons is denied entirely. According to the testimonies of the COI report, most human rights violations such as torture, abuse and other acts of inhuman and degrading treatment are predominately taking place in these facilities.
In light of these restrictions and the regime’s repressive exercise of power, it must be questioned how comprehensive and unbiased were the investigations of the four ambassadors that are now casting doubt about the COI report? The officials of the EU member states did not confirm that they were allowed to visit the facilities in question to provide sufficient evidence that proves the findings of the COI report as wrong. This, however, would be essential to have well-founded reasons to discredit the report.
Political interests involved in questioning the COI report
According to the F.A.Z. the four EU officials are critical about the unbiased view of the persons interviewed due to the fact that the COI report almost only includes testimonies from Eritrean refugees. They are commonly subject to the allegation that they have a personal interest in providing a particular horrific description of the situation in their home country in order to increase their chances of being granted asylum.
While it stands to reason to question the methodology of the COI report due to the personal interests of the witness, it is also worth questioning the interests involved of those who cast doubt about the reports credibility. The time seems to be just right to discredit the COI report. As correctly mentioned by the author of the article, a great majority of refugees are coming from Eritrea. The number increases if this includes Ethiopians claiming to be Eritreans in order to enjoy a guaranteed asylum status if the COI report is internationally recognised as credible. With the growing fear of EU member states of an ever increasing number of refugees that seek safe haven in Europe, the four ambassadors have all the best reasons to discredit the COI report if this provides the chance to reduce the number of new applicants, facilitate deportations and ease public and political tensions within Europe. The German embassy is likely to have a particular interest in questioning the COI report since its former political path of welcoming a great number of refugees split the nation and recent security threats have increased those tensions.
Reasons for the methodology of the COI report
Nevertheless, the methodology of the COI report deserves a justification. The Commission was denied access to Eritrea and hence were unable to interview people living within Eritrea and to investigate the situation on the ground. However, the refusal of the Eritrean government to cooperate with the Commission in its investigation should similarly cast doubt for the EU diplomats but is nowhere mentioned.
Furthermore, criticism is leveled towards the use of anonymous testimonies that are hard to independently verify. Testimonies were treated as confidential by the Commission due to the fact that the regime is known to be using methods of reprisals against their opponents. Many witnesses feared to be secretly monitored by the Eritrean government and that their testimony would endanger their own life or those of their family members. NGOs reported such incidents before and it was also covered by the F.A.Z. Hence, the Commission was obliged to treat the testimonies in confidence in order to ensure the protection of the witnesses and acted in accordance with standard policies of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
Can discrediting the COI report downsize the number of refugees?
Nevertheless, according to the F.A.Z., the ambassadors recommendation to their governments and to the EU as a whole to discredit the report and to lift UN sanctions against Eritrea. Otherwise, so they fear, that this could result in the cessation of the political relations which they expected to exacerbate the current refugee crises in Europe.
This argument presupposes that poverty and a poor economy are the root causes of migration. Although Eritrea suffers from food shortages and slow economic growth, the main driver for fleeing the country is the national service. According to the COI report, Eritreans are forced to work for an unspecified time, commonly under inhuman conditions where they often also face torture and abuse. The national service leaves many Eritreans without any prospects unless they leave the country. Hence, discrediting the COI report is quite unlikely to result in new opportunities to support the country’s development by which the numbers of Eritrean refugees coming to Europe could be downsized as long as the national service is still in place. Instead, lifting UN sanctions will most possibly fund and strengthen a repressive regime and tacitly provide international permission for the continuation of the crimes committed by the Eritrean government. These aspects considered, discrediting the COI report could eventually provide a new wave of refugees that try to escape its repressive government and seek a safe haven in Europe.